How the London riots showed us two sides of social networking

The role of social media, in particular Twitter, has come under scrutiny once …

I watched in disbelief, horror, and dismay as news broke of Londoners laying waste to their—and my—city. My part of South London, Tulse Hill, escaped the riots, probably for want of anything to steal, but businesses were attacked a mile away in Streatham, and widespread looting hit nearby Brixton. For the past four nights, the wail of police and fire sirens has been a continuous feature of the city's soundtrack.

These events are a godsend for 24-hour rolling news, but they also show its limitations. Like many others, I watched both BBC News and Sky News to find out what was going on. And like many others, I found the TV news incapable of keeping up with the changing situation.

Live text coverage from the BBC, the Guardian, and Sky News fared much better, but it was Twitter—of course—that was the most responsive, most timely source of information about the rioting and looting up and down the country. Raw, uncensored, and unverified though it may be, it was also the best way to learn what was actually going on.

But it didn't take long for Twitter, and its social networking cousins, to come under attack from authorities.

Twitter, tool of collective action

That's because social networking sites have become standard tools in the arsenal of those organizing all kinds of mass action. They offer instant communications and easy ways for groups of like-minded individuals to come together. Systems such as Twitter's hashtags make it easy for ad hoc networks to form around a common interest, act together, and then disband.

In London, police officers were quick to blame Twitter and social networking sites for the organized criminality that has struck across the capital. The move was almost reflexive; Twitter's role in such events is now well-known and expected. Twitter was certainly heavily used during the riots, with Monday setting a record for UK visits to the site.

Perhaps the first widespread use of Twitter to organize a protest was in the aftermath of Moldova's April 2009 election. With the victorious Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova accused of fraud and rigging the outcome, protest marches were organized. These demonstrations descended into chaos and became a riot, with buildings set ablaze, government offices ransacked, and shops looted.

David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, called for BlackBerry Messenger service to be temporarily suspended.

The original organizers of the protests used Twitter to publicize and promote their action, with their messages soon spreading by blogs, e-mail, and Facebook. Tweets about the protests used the hashtag #pman, short for Piata Marii Adunari Nationale, the name of the largest square in Chisinau, Moldova's capital city. With these networks instrumental in its organization, the movement became widely known as the "Twitter Revolution."

The Iranian election protests of 2009-2010, Tunisian protests of 2010-2011, and Egyptian protests of 2011 all saw Twitter and other social networks used in similar ways: a means for getting messages out and for rallying supporters.

However, although rioters did tweet, and continue to tweet, about their acts of theft and vandalism, the blame has now shifted from Twitter to BlackBerry Messenger (BBM). Rioters appear to have been setting their BBM statuses to tell their friends that they were out looting, and messaging each other to decide the best places to attack.

From the boardroom to the street

BBM might at first seem a strange choice; RIM's core audience for the BlackBerry is enterprise users, and the rioters are primarily (though not exclusively) disaffected teenagers and young adults. But BlackBerry Messenger has a very compelling feature: it's cheap. Though RIM would insist that its BlackBerrys are smartphones, many of them sell at feature phone prices, putting them within reach of many people who can't afford "proper" smartphones. BlackBerrys are also readily available on pay-as-you-go plans, further broadening their availability. BBM can also be cheap to use, with unlimited BlackBerry mail and Messenger typically costing about £5 (around $8) a month—less than most data plans or unlimited text packages.

BlackBerry Messenger has another desirable feature: it's a closed system. Unlike Twitter, where tweets are public broadcasts, or Facebook, where most messages are shared fairly indiscriminately, BBM is private. Most BBM messages are point-to-point, seen only by the sender and the receiver. Group messages are also possible; these too are only visible to those sending or receiving them. The entire system is also encrypted, offering less scope for surveillance by the police.

Unlike protestors campaigning for freedom and openness, for whom public visibility was important, privacy is a desirable characteristic for those engaged in criminality.

The use of BlackBerry Messenger in this way led to David Lammy, MP for Tottenham where the trouble first began, to call (on Twitter) for the service to be temporarily suspended.

For its part, RIM says that in all markets in which its products are available it will "cooperate with local telecommunications operators, law enforcement, and regulatory officials," and that it will assist the authorities "in any way [it] can". Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the UK police can demand the phone records, location data, and Internet records about specific individuals. This doesn't allow the police to make blanket requests—such as information about everyone in a particular area at a particular time, or everyone messaging the word "riot"—but it does mean that such evidence can be acquired about individuals identified in other ways (CCTV, for example).

RIM insists that it has no way of monitoring or intercepting e-mails sent through its enterprise mail system, but it has provided governments in some countries the ability to eavesdrop on the more consumer-focused BBM. The governments of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and India have all been given surveillance access to BBM.

RIM's statement that it will comply with local law was not warmly received by hacking group TeaMp0isoN_. TeaMp0isoN_, which a couple of months ago raised its profile by attempting to dox (identify) LulzSec members, hacked into the official BlackBerry blog and posted a message warning RIM against aiding law enforcement. Claiming that any assistance will mean that "innocent members of the public" will "get charged for no reason at all," the post threatened that TeaMp0isoN_ "has access to your database which includes your employees information; e.g - Addresses, Names, Phone Numbers etc.," and that this information will be given to the rioters if RIM provides information to the police.

Though Facebook didn't see the same UK traffic surge that Twitter experienced, it too had a small role to play in the drama. The BBC is reporting that a 17 year-old from Clacton, Essex has been arrested after allegedly using Facebook to incite others to meet up and riot.

Social networks are just a tool. Like any tool, some will use them for ill ends, but many others will put them to positive uses.

Preaching to the choir here. That won't stop the government from laying blame on these technologies though. [clears throat] "we can't afford to have these kids roaming about with so much power in their hands, we need a killswitch for social networking"

If you didn't realise the last sentence was sarcasm, then you really need some church.

Preaching to the choir here. That won't stop the government from laying blame on these technologies though. [clears throat] "we can't afford to have these kids roaming about with so much power in their hands, we need a killswitch for social networking"

If you didn't realise the last sentence was sarcasm, then you really need some church.

It may be sarcasm to you. It's a real possibility to me and an attractive prospect to any government. Meaning, sarcasm or not, do not think it may not ever happen.

It's a good thing Twitter (social networks in general) is willing to cooperate with authorities. This sends the right message to rioters, or other criminal acts, and removes any legitimacy from governments to pursue a hard line against social networking.

UK politicians are some of the biggest scumbags in the world (probably only matched in "scumbagness" by the people working in the RIAA offices)

wait just a little while and watch them trying to make a grab at getting some control over social networks and the like because "this should never happen again", "law abiding citizens should be protected", "think of the children" etc

then watch whatever power is granted at them being abused (like surveillance set up after anti-terrorism laws being used to watch if you recycle)

Social media has driven so many to super-narcissism, so much so that they incriminate themselves on Twitter, Facebook, forums, blogs, etc. The sad thing is, the "mainstream" media makes "the news," and ultimately has the ability to drive society. The internet gave everyone a voice, but this doesn't combat big media, it only makes it worse. Things like Twitter and Facebook encourage the "speak first, think later" thought process, and unfortunately, hate seems to spew so quickly from so many internet users sitting safely behind the screen. There's no time for debate when everyone can just feel right in their own way, and rail on the opposition instead of finding a way to survive on the same big dirt ball. Riots in London, social riots in Washington DC, stock market riots. While I do believe that everyone should have a voice, I don't feel that certain voices should be as loud as they are, because those are the fools that are trying to ruin us all.

The real issue isn't how the riots happened or were handled, interesting as that is, but why it happened. The torpid world economy and the British government's austerity program were probably why. Create or allow enough misery and you will always get a violent result. Maybe one day we will all realize this, hopefully before a country with nucs devolves into chaos.

People can complain all they want about the tools used by the rioters, but at the end of the what matters is what caused all this.

I think it was because people thought "free stuff (or supermarket sweep as one rioter aptly put it)" and "that looks fun, I'll join in". There is something quite fun smashing stuff and throwing stuff at people, though this is only O.K. in the right circumstances e.g. cadets. The short term problem and short term solution lies with the responsibility, though some don't seem to fully realise what trouble they have caused. For the youths involved, this responsibility partially lies with their parents, who also seem to not realise what trouble has happened because of their lack of judgement/control.

This leads on the reasons why there was such a lack of control, which may well be spending cuts, lack of jobs etc. Bad parenting and socially unhealthy household environments also play a major part (N.B. what is considered acceptable/good is what is compatible with the local community) and this will require investment.

The politicians however, are too busy playing the blame game (as usual) and the tools/technology that the rioters used/are using are an easy scapegoat.

There is a huge difference between rioting and protesting. Some of these people are complaining about the lack of jobs. Well, I regret to inform you of this, but jobs are hard to come by when you're destroying the very businesses that would hire you.

Peaceful protests are fine. And contrary to what some have said, they can work. Just look at Egypt.

Wow, this is brutal. Im amazed that stuff like this (the riot) can happen, it seems almost unreal to me. As for Twitter and other social networks, Ill say the same thing of any informed individual: "Dont censor the Internet". That said, Im not going to be able to defend that point specifically for this issue because I was just interested in the fact of the riot, not for the Internet's contribution. Thats kind of a given nowadays.

This has nothing to do with the internet. They have had riots before and they will have them again. It's a bunch of folks spoiled on the UK's generous social welfare system acting up.. You don't need "twitter' for that..

UK politicians are some of the biggest scumbags in the world (probably only matched in "scumbagness" by the people working in the RIAA offices)

wait just a little while and watch them trying to make a grab at getting some control over social networks and the like because "this should never happen again", "law abiding citizens should be protected", "think of the children" etc

then watch whatever power is granted at them being abused (like surveillance set up after anti-terrorism laws being used to watch if you recycle)

I do not live in UK but I can see this happening to you or to me in the USA.And by now you would think that most people have enough brains to not post their "crimes" online but hey you do get brainless ones anywhere who like to brag.Blaming Social Networks for Riots and Other People Issues is just plain stupid.In the old days when we got together to do some "dirty work" against the "Establishment" all we did was spread it mouth to mouth and post some flyers here and there.Our big thing was going around supergluing banks and government door locks, poring a bunch of glue into the lock.We did those kind of pranks but we could get a lot of people come out to do them and did not have computers in the 70's.I would not blame these Social Networks for what is happening in UK.UK has social issues it needs to deal with.RIAA & MPAA Can Suck My Dog's Dirty Ass !!!

Come on Peter, they were just doing it for the Lulz. Or maybe they were really just doing some rather aggressive political protesting. Sure, it's a lot more visually stimulating, and there is actual physical harm and unfortunately deaths as the result...but estimates are showing that the damage will amount to upwards of $160MM. That's less than the Sony Network hack is estimated to have cost.

How come you don't exhibit this same "disbelief, horror, and dismay" when Anonymous or any of their like are wrecking the same type of digital havoc in cyberspace?

Peaceful protests are fine. And contrary to what some have said, they can work. Just look at Egypt.

Egyptians still had to hold the line against police. They still had to burn down valid government and police targets. They still had to die before their voices were heard.

And still, they are not yet free. With luck, the military will keep it's word - indeed most likely they will - however, the deal is not yet done. If they do earn their freedom, it won't be a freedom earned through rote passivity. It will be a freedom earned – as with all freedoms – with blood.

The notable point is how little blood had to be shed. It was the remarkable restraint shown by the Egyptian people when they had every reason in the world to rampage throughout the country and Libya their gov’t.

Social networking has given rise to a new form of right-wing vigilantism during the unrest in England. The #cleanup was a great way of hiding discussion of the years of social deprivation that has led to its logical conclusion.

Since the rioters are using social media to organise where to loot etc. there should probably be a campaign to induce misinformation.The looters find out that the police are cracking down on a certain area and so move on to another.

I have been incredibly impressed by the Metropolitan Police in London. Not one rioter has been killed by police, and many police officers have been injured while trying to control the riots.

With the exception of Scandinavian police forces, I doubt that any police force would have handled the rioters with such a high degree of professionalism and so little police violence. When I look at video of the riots I've been impressed by how the police resisted the temptation to break heads and other body parts and retreated instead. Any large city in the USA would have handled such riots with tear gas, baton charges, plastic missiles, tasers, water cannon and gunfire. Retreat would not have been an option, such is the mindset of American police.

At the end of the day, every police officer wants to be able to go home to his family, uninjured. The outstanding treatment of the rioters means that most of them will go home also. All the deaths (so far) and most injuries have been caused by rioters against other rioters and innocent victims. The property damage from looting and arson is substantial, but the low level of injuries speaks volumes for the impressive policing plan. Property can be replaced or rebuilt, lost lives cannot.

At least they're more credible. We've been under surveillance constantly for the last 20 years anyway due to the amount of CCTV cameras we have that the fact that now there's an act that now covers it is neither here nor there. You're also quoting articles under the previous government. I'm defending against your point that "UK politicians are some of the biggest scumbags in the world", they're no different from any other politicians and probably less corrupt than most.

It's disappointing, but not surprising, that a hacker group threatens reprisals to RIM for complying with legal requests for information. As noted in the article, the police can't issue a blanket request, so any requests will be focused and made for a reason.

Many UK firms outsource jobs to the US and India because labor laws make them non-competitive.

For example, whenever I deal with our UK counterparts, they can shoot off an email saying they are leaving for vacation for a month and you guys (Americans) better take care of things while I am away.

Hardly any UK worker stay for over-time, never work on weekends, but always down for drinks during work hours.

This is pretty damned far off point from the article but whatever…

I'm not going to say this has no resemblance to the UK but I think you are over stating or making an overly broad generalization.

I used to do tech support for Cisco so I had to submit bugs to the devs for Cisco network gear. Therefor I dealt with a LOT of devs from India and also a number from the UK. From my experience even if your statement about vacation and hours was true the UK guys were still WAY better.

UK guys were freaking on point. They knew their crap. They had been around a while and brought serious skills to the table. The guys in India were just going through the motions. They sometimes knew their little tinny peace of the code well but had no broader understanding of things. Sometimes they barely even seemed to know their little peace. I had to hand feed them every little thing. Nearly zero skills with problem triage or logical problem analysis. Constantly looking for an excuse to make it not really a bug or someone else problem. And their turnover rate was sky high. These guys were there one second and gone the next and then you have anther green newbie to deal with.

To be clear I'm not knocking Indians as an ethnicity or a culture. I know lot of Indians who are on point and know their crap but most of them tend to be found somewhere other than in India and certainly not in Indian companies that provide services to overseas companies.

When it happens in the East it's a protest or civil unrest, demonstration, or revolt. They are protesters or marchers or anti-government demonstrators. I'm sure there was no properly damage over there at all.

When in happens in the West they are thugs or rioters, or criminals, or looters(ok, a lot of them are just jerk off looters) but from reading the article you'd think that was the only thing happening.

How'd it start? Ohh, all the looters got together and twittered up a coordinated strategy of mayhem. Why even look further. We can some up the entire essence of all these peoples' being and this event with one word.

Freaking hypocrites. You don't burn a police station because you ran out of fireworks. It's an expression of rage. As if the nature of the expression of the rage somehow negates or invalidates the underlying reasons for it. To which not one bit of ink here was given. I have no idea what the larger social root cause of this was. I have no special insight into these people. After reading this article. Yup, still have none.

I have been incredibly impressed by the Metropolitan Police in London. Not one rioter has been killed by police, and many police officers have been injured while trying to control the riots.

With the exception of Scandinavian police forces, I doubt that any police force would have handled the rioters with such a high degree of professionalism and so little police violence. When I look at video of the riots I've been impressed by how the police resisted the temptation to break heads and other body parts and retreated instead. Any large city in the USA would have handled such riots with tear gas, baton charges, plastic missiles, tasers, water cannon and gunfire. Retreat would not have been an option, such is the mindset of American police.

At the end of the day, every police officer wants to be able to go home to his family, uninjured. The outstanding treatment of the rioters means that most of them will go home also. All the deaths (so far) and most injuries have been caused by rioters against other rioters and innocent victims. The property damage from looting and arson is substantial, but the low level of injuries speaks volumes for the impressive policing plan. Property can be replaced or rebuilt, lost lives cannot.

I have to agree. An innocent protester can be shot through the heart in Tehran but restraint has been shown in London and around in Britain. We are far from a Bloody Monday here.

The rest of the issues are still out for debate but this exercise of civil rights is, well, ciuvilized.,,

There were folks arrested in Chicago, I think it was, during a protest a couple of years ago, for Twittering the location of the police while listening to a scanner. The authorities broke in the door of the hotel room they were staying in, as I recall, and charged them with attacking the police in some way that would result in a considerable amount of jail time. The media didn't really cover the arrests, and those who heard about it assumed a judge would berate the prosecution for this -- but I'm not so sure. Who knows how many Americans are arrested for Twittering? Who knows how many will be in future?

How can there be no mention in the article of what originally sparked the riots: a special unit of police, established to "control guns among the blacks", shooting to death an unarmed man in a taxicab?

Freaking hypocrites. You don't burn a police station because you ran out of fireworks. It's an expression of rage. As if the nature of the expression of the rage somehow negates or invalidates the underlying reasons for it. To which not one bit of ink here was given. I have no idea what the larger social root cause of this was. I have no special insight into these people. After reading this article. Yup, still have none.

I spent five years working in Liverpool, living on the borders of Toxteth. This is a very deprived area of Britain, with a high population of long-term unemployed (and unemployable) people. It can, frankly, be a bleak and depressing place.

Many of the local kids came from single-parent families, with no male authority figures. They lacked discipline. Truancy and petty crime was rife. A common game was to run from the 'bizzies' (the police). And it was just a game to these kids. I can see why the opportunity to cause some mayhem would be an attractive option. These are kids with no prospects, no money, no sense of worth, and no connection to the local community. They have nothing to lose. It's desperately sad. What's the answer? I've no idea. And the Tories certainly don't have a clue. Why should they care? The dispossessed rarely vote.

How can there be no mention in the article of what originally sparked the riots: a special unit of police, established to "control guns among the blacks", shooting to death an unarmed man in a taxicab?

The circumstances surrounding Mark Duggan's death are unclear, particularly with regard to whether or not he was armed.

Peaceful protests are fine. And contrary to what some have said, they can work. Just look at Egypt.

Egyptians still had to hold the line against police. They still had to burn down valid government and police targets. They still had to die before their voices were heard.

And still, they are not yet free. With luck, the military will keep it's word - indeed most likely they will - however, the deal is not yet done. If they do earn their freedom, it won't be a freedom earned through rote passivity. It will be a freedom earned – as with all freedoms – with blood.

The notable point is how little blood had to be shed. It was the remarkable restraint shown by the Egyptian people when they had every reason in the world to rampage throughout the country and Libya their gov’t.

But never forget that they had to pay for their freedom in lives.

I don't in any way diagree, but this seems very different. The Egyptians didn't go rampaging and destroying innocent businesses. The Egyptians loot stores just for the money. The Egyptians didn't riot until the very end. They stood up fir a noble cause. These guys just wanted an excuse to cause havoc.